Actually, I think that Kish has done a very nice job in balancing opposing points of view on the topic without attacking Dan personally, and, even giving kudos to Dan on portions of his article.

Thank you, Liz.

_________________When he is questioned he resorts to evasive statements and wriggles like an eel: “If you ask me whether this is another world; if I thought so, I would say there is another world. But I don’t say so. And I don’t say otherwise. And I don’t say it is not, and I don’t not say it is not." ~Brahmajala Sutta

Yes, Board Readers, stemelbow is serious. I have repeatedly stated in this thread it is an undisputed fact that Joseph Smith showed some plates to the Eight Witnesses, and that I think this hurts Mormonism instead of helping because it is consistent with a con game.

Who cares if it helps or hurts mormonism. The positive is, the 8 witness testimony was indeed evidence that convinced even you, an avowed critic. 'Tis cute that you continue to miss that. You claim it can't be evidence, but when you consider you are convinced, in part, I'm sure, due to this testimony, that Joseph Smith had plates that at least appeared ancient to untrained eyes, and had writings on them, then your complaint of no evidence is refuted. A claim by Joseph Smith was that he had metalic plates, that appeared ancient, with writings on them, no? I know you won't answer, but I'll put it out there again.

Quote:

It certainly did in your case, in Daniel Peterson's case, and in many others. You are trying to use the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses as circumstantial evidence that the Book of Mormon is true because you are buying into fallacious reasoning as intended.

I guess we'll see when you answer my question. I haven't said anything about what you keep trying to say I say or am trying to do. Did Joseph Smith claim he had metalic plates, that appeared ancient, with writings on them?

Quote:

There is no foundation for the Eight Witnesses having any idea as to the authenticity of the object they were shown, so their testimony is not valid evidence.

Yet, even you an avowed critic is happy to concede that their testimony worked--you think Joseph Smith did have ancient looking plates with writings on them.

Quote:

Additionally, you have to believe Joseph Smith's story to believe that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses establishes anything. But if you believe Joseph Smith's story, you necessarily believe he had the golden plates, making the Eight Witnesses irrelevant.

And yet, you are forced to accept it as relevant in that Joseph Smith" claim of having metalic plates that appeared ancient with writings on them is true. No? Or are you going to go back on that?

Quote:

If your only purpose is to show that "Joseph had some plates that had inscriptions on them," you don't purport to havea revelation from God about it, you don't get a small inner circle of relatives and close friends and take them off by themselves somewhere, and you don't write up a statement from them affirmatively stating a fact they could not have known (that Joseph Smith was the translator of the plates they were shown) and an opinion they were not qualified to give (that the plates they were shown were consistent with what ancient plates would look like). You just show the plates to whomever cares to see them.

Surely, if God tells you not to show them to anyone and requires to go about gaining witnesses by the means he did, then you do it just as he did. But that's his story that you seem to deny. Consider the data, then make observations--that's my advice to you, anyway.

Surely, if God tells you not to show them to anyone and requires to go about gaining witnesses by the means he did, then you do it just as he did. But that's his story that you seem to deny. Consider the data, then make observations--that's my advice to you, anyway.

... and following that advice I come to a conclusion that quite a lot of other people share: this looks like just the kind of thing a scam artist would do, including claiming that God told him to act in that very convenient way.

_________________Zadok:I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.Maksutov:That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

... and following that advice I come to a conclusion that quite a lot of other people share: this looks like just the kind of thing a scam artist would do, including claiming that God told him to act in that very convenient way.

Then skepticism reigns. But that's not a surprise at all. The point is, is there evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith had metalic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them, as he claimed? I'd say yes. you?

In order to bring greater clarity to the problem of the witnesses, I think it is useful to outline the parallels between the treasure digging enterprise and the discovery of the Book of Mormon. Suspicions regarding the former color perceptions of the latter. In this I don't think that those who are suspicious have no good reason for being so.

Consider some elements of the treasure digging enterprise:

1) Seer claims to see treasure in seer stone2) A company of treasure diggers employs him to assist in retrieving the treasure, for which he is paid3) In the course of the dig the seer dramatizes interactions with unseen forces that control access to the treasure4) The seer arranges for or identifies some piece of hard evidence that convinces the group that there was indeed a real treasure (piece of wood or metal, coin, etc.)5) The evidence increases the commitment of the treasure group to continue the dig and convinces them that the seer has real abilities

Now consider some elements of the coming forth of the Book of Mormon:

1) Joseph Smith claims to see the gold plates in a seer stone2) A company of treasure diggers assists him as seer in retrieving the plates3) In the course of the attempts to retrieve the plates, Joseph dramatizes interactions with unseen forces (Nephi/Moroni) that control access to the plates4) Joseph arranges for a group of witnesses to handle the plates in order to prove to them that they exist5) This evidence increases the commitment of Joseph Smith's supporters to press forward in assisting him in bringing forth the Book of Mormon, which he plans to sell with their help

Now, given the fact that most people view the elements of the first scenario as clear evidence of a con, can you understand why the second scenario is viewed similarly?

_________________When he is questioned he resorts to evasive statements and wriggles like an eel: “If you ask me whether this is another world; if I thought so, I would say there is another world. But I don’t say so. And I don’t say otherwise. And I don’t say it is not, and I don’t not say it is not." ~Brahmajala Sutta

Last edited by Kishkumen on Thu May 17, 2012 10:01 am, edited 1 time in total.

I have no problem saying that there is no reason to accept Joseph Smith' story outside of personal faith. That does not suggest there is no evidence. So I ask, is there evidence to confirm that Joseph Smith did indeed have metalic plates, which appeared ancient, and had writings on them as he claimed?

I have no problem saying that there is no reason to accept Joseph Smith' story outside of personal faith. That does not suggest there is no evidence. So I ask, is there evidence to confirm that Joseph Smith did indeed have metalic plates, which appeared ancient, and had writings on them as he claimed?

Ask God to show them to you.

_________________"You lack vision, but I see a place where people get on and off the freeway. On and off, off and on all day, all night.... Tire salons, automobile dealerships and wonderful, wonderful billboards reaching as far as the eye can see. My God, it'll be beautiful." -- Judge Doom

... and following that advice I come to a conclusion that quite a lot of other people share: this looks like just the kind of thing a scam artist would do, including claiming that God told him to act in that very convenient way.

Then skepticism reigns. But that's not a surprise at all. The point is, is there evidence to suggest that Joseph Smith had metalic plates that appeared ancient and had writings on them, as he claimed? I'd say yes. you?

I'd be more cautious. In the last analysis, I'd say that Smith prepared some kind of props as part of an effort to persuade his relations to sign a statement that he had ready for them, saying what he wanted them to say they had seen. Exactly how he did that, and just what the props would have looked like under a close examination by someone free to handle them as they wished, I can't be sure.

Even then, there is said to be evidence that some of them took quite a bit of persuading (though that is something I have only seen stated on this board).

_________________Zadok:I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.Maksutov:That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.

Evidence is a fact that tends to prove or disprove a certain claim. Are you ready to agree that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a hoax?

_________________I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

The histrionics on this thread say something about how people deal with proof and evidence---particularly when proof and evidence do not support their cherished beliefs.

Ray A and stemelbow are having kittens about this supposed hypocrisy I have in complaining about how Mopologists treat other members of the Church when I supposedly "do nothing but attack LDS folks." But I never made that complaint. In fact, I said that I don't particularly care about that issue.

Stemelbow has no evidence whatsoever to support his endless, tiresome meme that I am just "hostile" to "LDS folks" (as a side note, see how he lapses back into his faux country boy persona when he is trolling, but abandons it when he wants to be taken seriously). I said something recently to MercyandGrace that was very complimentary about her character. I disagree with Brant Gardner's ideas about the Book of Mormon, but I think he is a decent person. You, dear reader, are not going to find any examples of my being hostile to Consiglieri, or Nevo, or Wiki Wonka (I specifically said that he's a good guy), or David Bokovoy. Here's another thing I've said about Mormons:

Darth J wrote:

That the LDS Church is involved is particularly disappointing, because the Church really does do a lot of humanitarian work when it puts its mind to it. And most Latter-day Saints, in my experience, tend to be kind and decent people who wouldn't feel good about demolishing a motel where poor people are living just to let the land lie vacant until Jesus' next business venture can be thought of. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16021&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=294

In fact, as demonstrated by a quote from me that Ray has provided in this thread, I've been quite explicit that my comments about stemelbow are about him personally, not because he's a Mormon. But the abundance of evidence against stemelbow's "you just hate Mormons" meme, and the lack of evidence in favor of it, has neither stopped him nor slowed him down. The "you just hate Mormons" thing tends to increase in proportion to stemelbow's inability to address evidentiary problems with Mormonism's truth claims. Stemelbow, like an unfortunately large proportion of true believers, cannot distinguish between gainsaying of his cherished beliefs and a "personal attack." So we see at work here a time-honored fallacy for handling troublesome evidence: the red herring. Not only is "you just hate Mormons" a red herring, it is a complete fabrication.

Ray, who has now abandoned even the pretense of being rational, has repeatedly asserted that I am a pseudoskeptic because I dispute his cherished beliefs about space aliens visiting the Earth. Yet, as the evidence I provided shows, I specifically said I do not completely eliminate the possibility that space aliens exist or they have come to this planet. I just have no reliable, credible evidence that would lead me to believe those claims. That means I am not a pseduoskeptic, but Ray continues to say so even when he has been shown uncontested proof that his assertion is wrong.

Ray also has decided that I am a "liar." About what, God only knows, since Ray does not appear inclined to provide any evidence in support of his assertion. He's also incensed about alleged personal attacks on Daniel Peterson in this thread, even though I haven't made any personal attacks at all on Daniel Peterson in this thread.

Then there's Static, who is so totally not Simon Belmont that the moderators removed that picture I put up. His way of handling troublesome evidentiary issues about the faith-promoting narrative is not to handle such issues at all, but instead is so desperate to score any point of any kind that he wants to argue about whether a subset is or is not its own set regarding a role-playing game from the 1970's and 80's. I will give him this, though: in terms of ontology, relevance to the real world, and substance, his desire to argue about whether illusionists are their own class in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is indistinguishable from arguing about missing Book of Abraham scrolls or why the Book of Mormon talks about horses.

We're not robots. It's natural and expected that people will have emotional reactions to certain kinds of evidence about certain kinds of claims. But one of the main differences between a rational person and an irrational person is that a rational person determines what the evidence is, draws a conclusion therefrom, and then has whatever reaction he or she is going to have. An irrational person, by contrast, is governed almost entirely by emotion and logical fallacy. The behaviors described above are examples of that.

Coincidentally, the method of epistemology advocated by the LDS Church is the sacralization of irrationality. You're not supposed to determine that the Church is true based on evidence, and then it will make you feel good. Rather, you are supposed to feel good and leap to the conclusion that your subjective emotional state is proof of the claims of objective fact embedded in the Church's truth claims (that the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations really existed, that the Book of Abraham is an ancient document, that the human race began 6,000 years ago in Missouri, etc.). And so things like the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses are irrelevant under the Church's own methodology of determining "truth." "This proves that Joseph Smith had plates that some unqualified lay people thought looked ancient and had inscriptions on them!" So? James Strang also had plates that looked ancient and had inscriptions on them. So did Wilbur Fugate (that's one of the Kinderhook guys). But the Church touts the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses anyway. The Church draws near to evidence with its lips, but its mind is far from it; having a form of rationality, but denying the power thereof.

_________________I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

Last edited by Darth J on Thu May 17, 2012 10:21 am, edited 1 time in total.

I'd be more cautious. In the last analysis, I'd say that Smith prepared some kind of props as part of an effort to persuade his relations to sign a statement that he had ready for them, saying what he wanted them to say they had seen. Exactly how he did that, and just what the props would have looked like under a close examination by someone free to handle them as they wished, I can't be sure.

Even then, there is said to be evidence that some of them took quite a bit of persuading (though that is something I have only seen stated on this board).

You're not supposed to determine that the Church is true based on evidence, and then it will make you feel good. Rather, you are supposed to feel good and leap to the conclusion that your subjective emotional state is proof of the claims of objective fact embedded in the Church's truth claims (that the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations really existed, that the Book of Abraham is an ancient document, that the human race began 6,000 years ago in Missouri, etc.). And so things like the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses are irrelevant under the Church's own methodology of determining "truth."

This is, in my view, undeniable. I don't know why any apologist would bother trying to refute this point, since they, in their own way, affirm this in positive terms all the time. The major difference between your statement here and theirs is that you obviously don't find it legitimate or worthwhile, while they do. There is really nothing to argue over here.

_________________When he is questioned he resorts to evasive statements and wriggles like an eel: “If you ask me whether this is another world; if I thought so, I would say there is another world. But I don’t say so. And I don’t say otherwise. And I don’t say it is not, and I don’t not say it is not." ~Brahmajala Sutta

Evidence is a fact that tends to prove or disprove a certain claim. Are you ready to agree that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a hoax?

So a non answer again? obfuscation? k

I have said many, many, many times that I do not dispute that Joseph Smith had some plates that he showed the Eight Witnesses. Nor do I dispute that the Voree Plates existed, or the Kinderhook Plates existed.

Are you ready to agree that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a hoax?

___Yes ___No

_________________I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

The histrionics on this thread say something about how people deal with proof and evidence---particularly when proof and evidence do not support their cherished beliefs.

Ray A and stemelbow are having kittens about this supposed hypocrisy I have in complaining about how Mopologists treat other members of the Church when I supposedly "do nothing but attack LDS folks." But I never made that complaint. In fact, I said that I don't particularly care about that issue.

Stemelbow has no evidence whatsoever to support his endless, tiresome meme that I am just "hostile" to "LDS folks" (as a side note, see how he lapses back into his faux country boy persona when he is trolling, but abandons it when he wants to be taken seriously). I said something recently to MercyandGrace that was very complimentary about her character. I disagree with Brant Gardner's ideas about the Book of Mormon, but I think he is a decent person. You, dear reader, are not going to find any examples of my being hostile to Consiglieri, or Nevo, or Wiki Wonka (I specifically said that he's a good guy), or David Bokovoy. Here's another thing I've said about Mormons:

Darth J wrote:

That the LDS Church is involved is particularly disappointing, because the Church really does do a lot of humanitarian work when it puts its mind to it. And most Latter-day Saints, in my experience, tend to be kind and decent people who wouldn't feel good about demolishing a motel where poor people are living just to let the land lie vacant until Jesus' next business venture can be thought of. viewtopic.php?f=1&t=16021&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=294

In fact, as demonstrated by a quote from me that Ray has provided in this thread, I've been quite explicit that my comments about stemelbow are about him personally, not because he's a Mormon. But the abundance of evidence against stemelbow's "you just hate Mormons" meme, and the lack of evidence in favor of it, has neither stopped him nor slowed him down. The "you just hate Mormons" thing tends to increase in proportion to stemelbow's inability to address evidentiary problems with Mormonism's truth claims. Stemelbow, like an unfortunately large proportion of true believers, cannot distinguish between gainsaying of his cherished beliefs and a "personal attack." So we see at work here a time-honored fallacy for handling troublesome evidence: the red herring. Not only is "you just hate Mormons" a red herring, it is a complete fabrication.

Ray, who has now abandoned even the pretense of being rational, has repeatedly asserted that I am a pseudoskeptic because I dispute his cherished beliefs about space aliens visiting the Earth. Yet, as the evidence I provided shows, I specifically said I do not completely eliminate the possibility that space aliens exist or they have come to this planet. I just have no reliable, credible evidence that would lead me to believe those claims. That means I am not a pseduoskeptic, but Ray continues to say so even when he has been shown uncontested proof that his assertion is wrong.

Ray also has decided that I am a "liar." About what, God only knows, since Ray does not appear inclined to provide any evidence in support of his assertion. He's also incensed about alleged personal attacks on Daniel Peterson in this thread, even though I haven't made any personal attacks at all on Daniel Peterson in this thread.

Then there's Static, who is so totally not Simon Belmont that the moderators removed that picture I put up. His way of handling troublesome evidentiary issues about the faith-promoting narrative is not to handle such issues at all, but instead is so desperate to score any point of any kind that he wants to argue about whether a subset is or is not its own set regarding a role-playing game from the 1970's and 80's. I will give him this, though: in terms of ontology, relevance to the real world, and substance, his desire to argue about whether illusionists are their own class in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is indistinguishable from arguing about missing Book of Abraham scrolls or why the Book of Mormon talks about horses.

We're not robots. It's natural and expected that people will have emotional reactions to certain kinds of evidence about certain kinds of claims. But one of the main differences between a rational person and an irrational person is that a rational person determines what the evidence is, draws a conclusion therefrom, and then has whatever reaction he or she is going to have. An irrational person, by contrast, is governed almost entirely by emotion and logical fallacy. The behaviors described above are examples of that.

Coincidentally, the method of epistemology advocated by the LDS Church is the sacralization of irrationality. You're not supposed to determine that the Church is true based on evidence, and then it will make you feel good. Rather, you are supposed to feel good and leap to the conclusion that your subjective emotional state is proof of the claims of objective fact embedded in the Church's truth claims (that the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations really existed, that the Book of Abraham is an ancient document, that the human race began 6,000 years ago in Missouri, etc.). And so things like the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses are irrelevant under the Church's own methodology of determining "truth." "This proves that Joseph Smith had plates that some unqualified lay people thought looked ancient and had inscriptions on them!" So? James Strang also had plates that looked ancient and had inscriptions on them. So did Wilbur Fugate (that's one of the Kinderhook guys). But the Church touts the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses anyway. The Church draws near to evidence with its lips, but its mind is far from it; having a form of rationality, but denying the power thereof.

Sheesh, DJ. I asked you a question and you come out with this long post complaining about folks like me, who happens to be LDS? Yiptey? no answer to my question coming?

I have said many, many, many times that I do not dispute that Joseph Smith had some plates that he showed the Eight Witnesses. Nor do I dispute that the Voree Plates existed, or the Kinderhook Plates existed.

Are you ready to agree that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a hoax?

I have said many, many, many times that I do not dispute that Joseph Smith had some plates that he showed the Eight Witnesses. Nor do I dispute that the Voree Plates existed, or the Kinderhook Plates existed.

Are you ready to agree that the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a hoax?

___Yes ___No

Is that a yes? It is evidence?

Yes. It is evidence that the Book of Mormon is a hoax.

_________________I can no longer sit back and allow Communist infiltration, Communist indoctrination, Communist subversion and the international Communist conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious bodily fluids.

In fact, as demonstrated by a quote from me that Ray has provided in this thread, I've been quite explicit that my comments about stemelbow are about him personally, not because he's a Mormon. But the abundance of evidence against stemelbow's "you just hate Mormons" meme, and the lack of evidence in favor of it, has neither stopped him nor slowed him down. The "you just hate Mormons" thing tends to increase in proportion to stemelbow's inability to address evidentiary problems with Mormonism's truth claims. Stemelbow, like an unfortunately large proportion of true believers, cannot distinguish between gainsaying of his cherished beliefs and a "personal attack." So we see at work here a time-honored fallacy for handling troublesome evidence: the red herring. Not only is "you just hate Mormons" a red herring, it is a complete fabrication.

Ray, who has now abandoned even the pretense of being rational, has repeatedly asserted that I am a pseudoskeptic because I dispute his cherished beliefs about space aliens visiting the Earth. Yet, as the evidence I provided shows, I specifically said I do not completely eliminate the possibility that space aliens exist or they have come to this planet. I just have no reliable, credible evidence that would lead me to believe those claims. That means I am not a pseduoskeptic, but Ray continues to say so even when he has been shown uncontested proof that his assertion is wrong.

Ray also has decided that I am a "liar." About what, God only knows, since Ray does not appear inclined to provide any evidence in support of his assertion. He's also incensed about alleged personal attacks on Daniel Peterson in this thread, even though I haven't made any personal attacks at all on Daniel Peterson in this thread.

Then there's Static, who is so totally not Simon Belmont that the moderators removed that picture I put up. His way of handling troublesome evidentiary issues about the faith-promoting narrative is not to handle such issues at all, but instead is so desperate to score any point of any kind that he wants to argue about whether a subset is or is not its own set regarding a role-playing game from the 1970's and 80's. I will give him this though: in terms of ontology, relevance to the real world, and substance, his desire to argue about whether illusionists are their own class in Advanced Dungeons & Dragons is indistinguishable from arguing about missing Book of Abraham scrolls or why the Book of Mormon talks about horses.

We're not robots. It's natural and expected that people will have emotional reactions to certain kinds of evidence about certain kinds of claims. But one of the main differences between a rational person and an irrational person is that a rational person determines what the evidence is, draws a conclusion therefrom, and then has whatever reaction he or she is going to have. An irrational person, by contrast, is governed almost entirely by emotion and logical fallacy. The behavior described above are examples of that.

Coincidentally, the method of epistemology advocated by the LDS Church is the sacralization of irrationality. You're not supposed to determine that the Church is true based on evidence, and then it will make you feel good. Rather, you are supposed to feel good and leap to the conclusion that your subjective emotional state is proof of the claims of objective fact embedded in the Church's truth claims (that the Nephite and Jaredite civilizations really existed, that the Book of Abraham is an ancient document, that the human race began 6,000 years ago in Missouri, etc.). And so things like the Testimony of the Eight Witnesses are irrelevant under the Church's own methodology of determining "truth." "This proves that Joseph Smith had plates that some unqualified lay people thought looked ancient and had inscriptions on them!" So? James Strang also had plates that looked ancient and had inscriptions on them. So did Wilbur Fugate (that's one of the Kinderhook guys). But the Church touts the testimonial of the Eight Witnesses anyway. The Church draws near to evidence with its lips, but its mind is far from it; having a form of rationality, but denying the power thereof.

Is that all off your chest now? Good. You've mocked me and my ideas continuously, in spite of what you claim above.

Now you're verbally farting about "being rational", and I suppose one must assume that you are the paragon of rationality. No, you are not. You're just another pseudoskeptical dogmatist, and part of The New Inquisition, the antidote to freethinking.